24 Jul 2009 ... The California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance (CSWA) carried out a ... A total
of 324 names were selected for the sample from the SWP's ...
CALIFORNIA S U S TA I N A B L E WINEGROWING ALLIANCE Benefiting the environment, the community and high quality grapes and wine
Understanding Adoption and Impacts of Sustainable Practices in California Vineyards 1 Executive Summary Table of Contents Executive Summary .................. 1 Introduction ............................. 5 Methods ................................... 5 Sample .................................. 5 Survey Procedure .................. 6 Data Analysis ....................... 6 Results ...................................... 6 Response Rate ...................... 6 Descriptive Statistics ............ 7 Adoption Rates ................... 7 Results for Practices. ............ 10 Problems with Practices ...... 22 Cost Effective Practices ...... 22 Plans for Future Practices and Constraints to Adoption ..... 22 Recommendations ............... 23 Concluding Observations ....... 26
Acknowledgments: CSWA would like to thank the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for project support, and collaborators from the University of California, Davis, including Sonja Brodt, Luis Sierra and Margaret MacSems, who were interviews and data analysts, and Ann Thrupp who coordinated the project. CSWA also appreciates the cooperation and information of all the individuals who participated in the survey. July 2009
Introduction and Purpose
T
he California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance (CSWA) carried out a statewide survey of Sustainable Winegrowing Program (SWP) participants during late spring and summer of 2008, which was aimed to identify: a) motivations and constraints for the adoption of sustainable vineyard management practices, b) the perceived impacts of the practices, and c) feedback on the effectiveness of the SWP. The survey results revealed information that can be useful to growers, program planners, educators and policy makers in this field. Sustainable practices are defined generally as winegrowing methods that are environmentally sound, economically viable and socially responsible. The survey focused on the following practices that pertain to resource conservation and/ or effective vineyard management that contribute to increased sustainability: cover crops, reduced tillage, erosion control, headgerow/habitat management, installing bird boxes, IPM practices, energy conservation, renewable energy and watershed restoration.
Survey Sample 2 A total of 324 names were selected for the sample from the SWP’s database of participants. All of them were initially sent the survey by mail. Approximately 108 names each were growers with 17 acres and under, 108 from 18 to 300 acres, and the final third had more than 300 acres. 101 individuals completed the survey, mainly through phone interviews. 48 growers (56%) were from the North Coast, followed by 15 (17%) from the Central Valley, 14 (16%) from and Central Coast, and 10% from the Sierra region. Vineyard acreages of respondents ranged from an acre to 6,500 acres. The mean acreage is 588 acres, but the median is 54 acres, and 60% of the growers have 100 or fewer acres. 16 of the respondents were certified organic, and 18 were certified by Fish Friendly Farming. 1
2
This report is written by Sonja Brodt, UC Davis research associate, and Ann Thrupp, CSWA Project Manager. Of the original total sample of 324, 106 individuals were selected because they were considered “highly motivated” participants – meaning they are actively involved in the program, as members of the CSWA Board of Directors or the SWP Joint Committee, or respondents in a previous survey. 218 additional SWP participants were chosen at random from the program’s mailing list, categorized by winegrape acreage. Among the final respondents, approximately half came from the “highly motivated” group and half from the “random” group. 1
Main Practices Used, Motivations for Adoption and Impacts Of the 16 practices included in this survey, 11 of them have been adopted by over half of the survey participants, and eight of these have been adopted by ¾ or more of the participants. The top ten practices adopted are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Regular monitoring of pest insects and/or diseases (96%) Reduced risk pesticides (95%) Reduced tillage approaches (91%) Conserving natural vegetation on their property (91%) Leaf pulling (82%) Cover crops (80%) Bird boxes (75%) Erosion control measure (72%) Weather station (60%) Monitor beneficials (59%)
The main reasons for adoption vary, depending on the particular practice, but they include both environmental and economic motivations, as summarized in Table 1 below. The respondents gained information about these practices from a diversity of sources; but the most commonly stated information sources included Pest Control Advisors (PCAs) or consultants (for IPM practices) and industry journals/magazines. Many of the respondents also mentioned that they had gained information from other growers, seminars and workshops held by sustainable winegrowing programs, UC Cooperative Extension, and/or similar organizations. Table 1. Adoption Rates for Specific Practices (n=101) Practice
Number of Respondents who Adopted
Reasons for adoption (number of respondents)* Environmental
Improve production
Cost Effective
Scientific proof
Other Reasons
Monitor pests
97
48
54
60
38
Buyer/winery asked for it
Reduced risk pesticides
96
77
16
21
16
Personal/worker health and safety
Reduced tillage
92
75
19
39
24
Facilitate access during rainy season
91
75
na
20
15
Government regulations; looks good
Leaf pulling
83
22
56
24
31
Better grape quality – winery asked for it
Cover Crops
81
62
32
21
31
Facilitate access during rainy season
Energy conservation
79
40
12
62
18
Improve quality with drip irrigation
Bird boxes
75
53
20
37
27
Good for marketing
Erosion control measures
72
64
10
18
25
Government regulations
Weather station
61
23
32
37
31
For irrigation timing
Monitor beneficials
58
36
27
28
27
Help make pesticide application decisions
45
36
5
8
10
Esthetics
Renewable energy
36
29
Na
25
6
Practical for off-grid locations
Creek/river restoration
34
28
na
6
5
Government regulations
Release beneficials
26
22
8
9
7
Establish population early in new vineyard
Use only organic inputs
24
21
5
5
3
Winery asked for it
Conserve natural vegetation
Plant habitat (hedgerows, etc.)
∗ Respondents were asked to provide more than one reason, when relevant
2
www.sustainablewinegrowing.org
The survey also reTable 2. Perceived Impacts of Specific Practices vealed information Impacts of practices (number of people)* % of Respondents about the perceived who Adopted Practice Better for Increase Reduces Increase Increase Other impacts impacts of these prac(of those who environment quality costs costs yields mentioned tices. The majority of answered) the respondents cited a Monitor pests 96 56 60 49 10 39 Better results Reduced risk variety of environmen95 75 28 18 35 9 Better health pesticides tal and/or economic Reduced tillage 91 68 36 56 na. na More gophers benefits or particular Conserve benefits to producnatural 91 63 na 15 na na Pest habitat tion, as summarized in vegetation Leaf pulling 82 31 77 15 42 31 Disease control Table 2. More than 80 56 44 20 17 15 Reduce erosion half of the respondents Cover Crops Energy (for each item) recog79 43 28 64 na 12 More efficient conservation nized that several of Bird boxes 75 46 15 32 na 15 Reduce gophers these practices, inErosion control 72 62 15 19 16 na Avoids problems cluding pest monitor- measures Weather station 60 30 34 39 na 15 Reduce sprays ing, reduced tillage, Monitor energy conservation 59 39 31 28 na 16 Better control beneficials and renewable energy Plant habitat technologies are both (hedgerows, 45 34 8 9 6 na Attract gophers better for the environ- etc.) ment and reduce costs. Renewable 36 24 na 17 11 na Tech problems energy On the other hand, Creek/river 34 28 na 4 12 na Prevent flooding some respondents restoration mentioned that a few Release 26 22 7 8 7 na Less spraying of the practices, such as beneficials reduced risk pesticides Use only 24 17 12 na 17 5 Vine health organic inputs and solar energy, result in increased costs; and ∗ Respondents were asked to provide more than one type of impact, if relevant. in some cases, those costs did constrain use of the practices. Other practices, especially leaf pulling, are expensive to implement but can lead to higher returns at harvest, due to their favorable impacts on grape quality.
Plans for the Future, Constraints, and Opportunities Respondents were asked whether any of the sustainable farming practices they use have posed any significant problems. In general, respondents appeared to be happy with their choices of practices and few noted specific problems. When problems were mentioned, they tended to fall into certain categories. The most notable issue was a concern about vertebrate and invertebrate pests being harbored in naturally-occurring vegetation or planted habitat in or near the vineyard. This concern was noted by a total of 18 respondents. Related to this issue, the second biggest concern, expressed by 15 total respondents, was that cover crops together with a no-till soil management regime tended to increase the presence of gophers, ground squirrels, and voles in the vineyard. Respondents were asked whether there were any practices they would like to incorporate, but have not yet tried. An overwhelming number of respondents (48 respondents, or almost half of the sample) mentioned energy-related practices they would like to try. Of these, 37 mentioned a desire to install solar panels for water pumping and/or other energy needs. The overwhelming constraint to adoption of these practices is the high cost, especially for solar energy (27 respondents). Scale of the operation is an issue that affects costs for solar and wind energy; three growers felt uncertain whether the small size of their operation would allow these technologies to be cost effective or have a reasonable payback time. July 2009
3
Cost Effective Practices Respondents were asked to indicate whether they found any specific practices they had adopted to be very cost effective and that they would recommend to others. * The largest category of responses involved monitoring conditions in the vineyard (22 respondents), primarily pest and disease monitoring (14 respondents), but also water use and soil moisture monitoring (6), and, in a few cases, tissue analysis and soil analysis for nutrient needs (3). * Twelve growers specifically mentioned irrigation-related practices, including deficit irrigation, drip irrigation, and monitoring water needs and water use efficiency. * Cover crops were mentioned as very cost effective by 11 growers, and reduced tillage by 10 growers. In fact, in the section of the survey pertaining to individual practices, 20 growers total (about 25% of adopters) indicated that cover crops reduce costs, and 56 (61% of adopters) indicated that reduced tillage reduces costs.
Thirteen growers were interested in trying releases of beneficial species and/or increasing planted habitat for beneficial species, but six felt that they lacked enough experience or knowledge to do so. Four additional growers were interested in more conservation of natural vegetation or planted hedgerows, but two of them mentioned lack of space or lack of economic justification as constraints. Seven wanted to install bird boxes or raptor perches, with the main constraint being lack of time to get around to doing it (6 respondents). Ten growers expressed concern about chemical weed control and wanted to find alternative methods, such as using a weed badger, sheep, horticultural fabric, or changing water applications. Six growers would like to use more organic practices or experiment with all-organic blocks, and four would like to start using compost or adding other organic matter to the soil. Many of these respondents said that increased knowledge of these practices would be helpful for them to consider adoption.
Suggestions and Interests The survey respondents offered a range of suggestions for the Sustainable Winegrowing Program. Among topics requested to be covered in SWP workshops, 10% of respondents were particularly interested in getting better cost analyses of recommended practices. About 7 % were also interested in topics dealing with energy efficiency and resource use efficiency, and two wanted more information about recycling and where to find recycling companies and facilities. Water conservation and the use and impacts of deficit irrigation were additional topics requested by four people. Other suggestions for the SWP pertained to new methods for outreach and “marketing” of the SWP. Among these, 11 suggested increasing public awareness about the program, and about the sustainability of winegrape production. Several expressed a concern that the non-farming public misunderstands actions taken by farmers. Some also perceived a need for encouraging wineries to buy sustainably grown grapes. Seven respondents also perceived a need to increase the program promotion among growers and to increase the number of SWP events held in their area. Five suggested that one way the SWP could help more growers learn is by providing more opportunities to discuss their on-farm practices with one another and to have more interactive activities in vineyards among growers. The SWP appreciates the suggestions and other information gained from this survey, and will develop future opportunities to address these topics and issues. The program currently offers educational workshops and field events related to energy efficiency, resource conservation, and other topics, working in cooperation with regional winegrowing programs and other partners. The SWP and collaborators are undertaking and planning additional activities to advance the adoption of sustainable winegrowing practices, building on the leadership and success of current adopters, and to promote continual improvement towards increasing sustainability. Please see www.sustainablewinegrowing.org, for a schedule of events and other information and resources.
4
www.sustainablewinegrowing.org
CALIFORNIA S U S TA I N A B L E WINEGROWING ALLIANCE Benefiting the environment, the community and high quality grapes and wine
Understanding Adoption and Impacts of Sustainable Practices in California Vineyards 1 Key Findings Sustainable Winegrowing Practices Covered in the Survey Sustainable practices are defined as winegrowing methods that are environmentally sound, economically viable, and socially responsible.
Introduction
T
he California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance (CSWA) implemented a statewide telephone survey of Sustainable Winegrowing Program (SWP) participants during late spring and summer, 2008. The purpose of the survey was to assess adoption of sustainable vineyard management practices, to understand motivations and constraints for adoption of these practices, as well as their overall impacts on vineyard operations, and to gain feedback about the effectiveness of the SWP. The National Fish & Wildlife Foundation provided funding for this project, which was carried out in collaboration with UC Davis scientists.2
Methods The survey focused on the following sustainable practices that pertain to resource conservation and/or effective vineyard management: • Cover crops
• • • • •
Reduced tillage Erosion control Hedgerows/habitat management Installing bird boxes IPM practices (monitoring of pests & beneficials, reduced-risk materials, leaf-pulling) • Energy conservation
Sample A total of 324 names were selected for the sample from the SWP’s database of participants. Of this total, 106 individuals were purposely selected because they met one or more of the following criteria: member or alternate on the CSWA Board of Directors, SWP Joint Committee member, prior respondent to a SWP survey, or featured producer in an SWP newsletter.2 These “highly motivated” participants were considered to be most likely to exhibit a high degree of motivation for following sustainable farming practices and would be likely to provide adequate insights into reasons for adopting sustainable practices. In addition, 218 additional SWP participants were chosen at random from the program’s mailing list, stratified by winegrape acreage. Approximately 72 names each were chosen from those with 17 acres and under, from 18 to 300 acres, and more than 300 acres. 1
2
July 2009
Written by Sonja Brodt, UC Davis research associate, and Ann Thrupp, CSWA Project Manager. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation provided funding for this project. Luis Sierra, Margaret MacSems, and Sonja Brodt were interviewers for the project. CSWA appreciates the cooperation and information of all of the individuals who participated in this survey. 5
Response Rate: 101 participants provided a completed interview... This figure provides for a response rate of about 38 percent, and a cooperation rate of 82 percent. About half of the final respondents came from the “highly motivated” group of Sustainable Winegrowing Program participants.
Survey Procedure All growers in the sample were mailed a letter summarizing the purposes of the survey and explaining the survey procedure. This mailing also included a paper copy of the survey questionnaire, to apprise respondents of the questions in advance. The sample was equally divided among three interviewers – University of California (UC) scientists/collaborators with expertise in survey methodologies and data analysis. The interviewers called growers from 1 to 5 weeks after the mailing was completed to introduce the survey project and set appointment times for telephone interviews. Interviewers made at least three attempts to reach most growers by telephone, and in hard-to-reach cases for which e-mail addresses were available, e-mails were also sent.
Data Analysis Descriptive statistics of the data were computed using Excel and SAS. Due to the categorical nature of much of the data, as well as its non-normal distribution, additional quantitative analysis was accomplished via nonparametric statistical tests of association, including the Fisher Exact test (similar to Chi Square) for wholly categorical data and the Kruskal-Wallis test in cases where one variable (acreage) had a continuous distribution. Additional exploratory data analysis of the yes/no responses to adoption of specific practices was performed using correspondence analysis. This method graphically maps variables based on response patterns across all respondents, so that practices that are adopted by the same or close to the same sets of respondents are grouped close together, and those adopted by very different groups of respondents are mapped far apart from each other. Results of this method showed almost all practices grouped very closely in one cluster, most likely due to the universally high adoption rates of most of the practices, so these results are not reported on further in this document. Qualitative data analysis was completed by using Excel to group responses into emergent categories.
Results Response Rate Of the 324 attempted contacts, 22 individuals declined to participate in the survey, and 42 individuals were taken off the list due to our inability to identify current phone numbers or e-mail addresses for them, they had stopped producing winegrapes, or someone else, such as a vineyard management company, had taken primary responsibility for farming their land. Of the remaining 260 individuals, 101 provided a completed interview, including three respondents who preferred to mail in the paper survey rather than participate by telephone. 6
www.sustainablewinegrowing.org
This figure provides for a response rate of about 38 percent, and a cooperation rate of 82 percent. About half of the final respondents came from the “highly motivated” group of SWP participants.
Descriptive Statistics Vineyard acreages of respondents ranged from half an acre to 6,500 acres. While the mean acreage is 588 acres, the median is only 54 acres, and 60 percent of growers have 100 or fewer acres. According to data available from the SWP, the non-respondents had a significantly larger mean acreage of 1,151 acres (p=0.03), and a median of 113 acres. This difference might indicate a greater difficulty in reaching full-time vineyard managers responsible for large acreages, or a greater reluctance on their part to take time out from work to respond to telephone calls. Growers who were reached but declined to participate had an intermediate mean acreage of 895 acres, but a much higher median of 380 acres, further supporting the suggestion that larger growers are less inclined to participate in the survey. Respondents’ years of experience in winegrapes ranged from 2 to 70 years, but most growers placed in the middle of that range, with an average of 20 years and a median of 18.5 years.
Box 1
Sustainable Farming Certifications Held by Respondents Certification
# of Respondents
Fish Friendly Farming
18
Organic
16*
Lodi Rules
5
Demeter/Biodynamic
2
Benziger 3rd party certified
2
Green Business Program
2
Central Coast Vineyard Team
1
*mean organic certified acreage was 97
We grouped respondents into four regions defined as North Coast (including growers in Sonoma, Napa, and Mendocino counties), Central Coast (Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo counties), Central Valley (Sacramento, Fresno, Madera and San Joaquin counties), and Sierra (El Dorado, Amador, and Calaveras counties). Fifteen respondents were not included in any group because they either farmed in multiple regions or in poorly represented regions, including South Coast (three growers) and Southeast Interior (three growers). Altogether, the North Coast was more heavily represented, with 48 growers (56%), followed by the Central Valley (15 growers, 17%) and Central Coast (14 growers, 16%), while the Sierra region was represented by only nine respondents (10%).
acres, representing 46% of these growers’ total winegrapes acreage
Note: Sustainability in Practice Vineyard Certification Program and the California Sustainable Winegrowing Program Certification Program were not yet available at the time of the survey.
Eighteen of the respondents use the Fish Friendly Farming certification program. Sixteen of the respondents were managing certified organic acreage, ranging from 2 to 635 acres, and 0.2% to 100% of their total winegrapes acreage. Twelve respondents held other “sustainable farming” certifications (Box 1).
Adoption Rates for Specific Practices Overall Adoption Of the 16 practices included in the survey, 11 of them have been adopted by over half of the survey participants, and eight of these have been adopted by three-quarters or more. The top five practices are regular monitoring of pest insects and/or diseases, using reduced risk pesticides, following reduced tillage regimes (or, in many cases, no-till), conserving natural vegetation on their property, and leaf pulling (Table 3). July 2009
7
“We are a very environmentally sound group. Drinking wine is good for the environment!” - Surveyed winegrape grower
Table 3. Adoption Rates for Specific Practices Practice
Monitor pests Reduced risk pesticides Reduced tillage Conserve natural vegeta-
% of Respondents Who Adopted (of those who answered this question) 97 96 92 91
Number who did not answer this question
0 0 0 1
tion Leaf pulling Cover Crops Energy conservation Bird boxes Erosion control measures Weather station Monitor beneficials Plant habitat (hedgerows,
83 81 79 75 72 61 58 45
0 0 1 1 2 0 2 1
etc.) Renewable energy (solar,
36
1
biofuels) Creek restoration Release beneficials Use only organic inputs
34 26 24
1 0 1
Adoption Rates by Region Six practices showed significantly different adoption rates across the four mostrepresented study regions (North Coast, Central Coast, Sierra, and Central Valley)(Fisher Exact test p < 0.05). Sierra growers are much less likely to plant cover crops (33%) compared to growers in the North Coast (94%), Central Coast (86%), and Central Valley (73%) regions. North and Central Coast as well as Sierra growers implemented erosion control measures at much higher rates (81%, 93%, and 67%, respectively) than did Central Valley growers (20%), almost all of whom considered it unnecessary due to their predominantly flat ground. The North Coast and Central Valley growers monitor beneficial species at higher rates (63% and 73%, respectively), compared to the Sierra growers (22%) and Central Coast growers (36%). Over one-third (36%) of North Coast growers also reported using exclusively organic inputs, while no more than one individual in each of the other regions did likewise. North Coast and Central Coast growers perform more leaf pulling (94% and 86%, respectively). Almost half (48%) of the North Coast growers have done a creek restoration project, a much higher percentage than in the other three regions.
8
www.sustainablewinegrowing.org
Adoption Rates by Winegrape Acreage Winegrape acreage is significantly different for growers who adopted five of the practices, compared to those who did not adopt (Kruskal-Wallis p < 0.05). One should note that the acreage figures obtained in the survey are only proxies for actual farm size, since the survey did not ask about total farm acres, and it was clear from the interviews that some of the respondents grow other crops in addition to winegrapes. Growers who have implemented creek restoration projects and installed bird boxes, monitor a weather station regularly in making disease control decisions, and have regular monitoring programs for both pest and beneficial species have significantly larger acreage than those who do not use these practices. In addition, growers who have planted hedgerows or other habitat and/or who conserve natural vegetation have somewhat larger acreage than those who have not (not significant at 5% level, but significant at 10% level, p = 0.0665).
Adoption Rates for Organic Growers Growers with certified organic acreage tended to adopt certain practices in significantly higher proportions than non-organic growers, especially practices favorable to predators and beneficial species, and those that pertain to the larger ecosystem in which the vineyard is situated.
Practices with Adoption Rates >80%* •
Monitor pests
• Reduced risk pesticides • Reduced tillage • Conserve natural vegetation • Leaf pulling • Cover Crops * Of those respondents who answered the question
A significantly lower percentage of organic growers than other growers reported using reduced risk pesticides. However, inspection of the data reveals that only three organic growers said they do not use them, with all three indicating the reason as being that they use only certified organic inputs.
Adoption Rates by Sampling Group Growers who were considered as “highly motivated” during the sample selection process adopted some practices at higher rates than the remaining growers (Fisher Exact p
